"David Gowers"
wrote

I want to make this clear: In English language 'create a new imagine' is nonsense. imagine is a verb, as in 'I imagine I am eating a juicy watermelon'; it's an action, not a thing.

'image' is the noun, you can 'create a new image' or 'modify the active >image'; All of the instances I have seen where you used the word 'imagine', 'image' was the appropriate word.

Personally, I often find your use of 'imagine' confusing, so I think you could improve the readability of your posts and how many people respond by making this change.

OOPSS..you are right,thank to point this out Too bad i can't correct my previous post i will avoid in the future

I hope my poor english will not destroy the quality my arguments

Many ,if not most of the younger users of Gimp,begin to use gimp to create Sigs ,so they must immediately face this kind of usability issues.

I want make clear that i do not expect the Gimp staff spending energy and wasting time to fix that..i hope "old mess" be no a impolite word

What i hope is a agreement on the principle: a division between Image-Scripts and Toolbox scripts has no more sense now. Since same script may offer the all the options needed, there is no reason to split a good ,flexible script, in 2 scripts each offering less then half of the needed features.

Then if there is a agreement on this point most of the work of updating may be done by volunteers, as was done by volunteers (and result grouped by FX-Foundry ) the work to update the custom script from gimp 2.2 to 2.4

Just the guideline has to be set i believe a script should offer all the most logic options for input (if not a render script) and for output

And in case of "Logos-related" scripts should have options to use as input a text layer AND/OR to create a new text on the fly with user's chosen font and to output the result where the user wish.

What prevent this seems no limitations of script fu, but exigence of categorization that may be now obsolete

PS I hope this not a double post
Line went off just when i was sending this, so i fear my message went lost

From: Martin Nordholts

I agree with basically all your points but to be honest I can't see why
anyone would want to use those scripts at all.

Many young download and start using GIMP to make sigs for forum So their first contact with GIMP include that scripts As they are they may give a very bad impression of the program.

This may be corrected without much effort from the developer staff What may needed from the staff are just sort of guidelines.

As all selecting tool offer all the most logic options for selection (replace selection, subtract , add, intersect )i will like for the script the possibility to do the same for the most logic input/output options:

nobody would like have to search a Free-selection tool able to subtract to the selection in a Menu, and then have to search another,almost identical Free Selection tool able to Add to the selection in a different menu .

But something similar happen for all logo-related scripts and even if in a less evident way for most of the script-fu bundled in Gimp,this due to that old way to categorize the script fu